Three revert rule violation onTurkmen people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).-Inanna- (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[Dates are diffrent as you can see...Inanna22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you cannot reckon.26 comes after than 25...Inanna22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation onUnion of Concerned Scientists (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views),Tbeatty (talk ·contribs) whose entire history from date of registration to current, seems to exclusively revolve around creating, and defending "liberal bias" sections in any article he doesn't like very much, nothing to make me think he'll back off in any way--205.188.116.7001:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
See above but look at the page. I've added sourced content, not labels. The anon user just deletes the new, sourced information.—Thisunsigned comment was added byTbeatty (talk •contribs) .
Blocked for 15 minutes as it an AOL IP. But you're not allowed to edit for 24 hours anyway. —Ruud02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKurdish people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views):
Reported by:AucamanTalk05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Has done 4 reverts in less than 2 hrs. Has been here long enough to know about 3RR and revert warring.AucamanTalk05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Those are clearly not all reverts, I was trying to protect the article while calling admins (because two users were trying to vandalise the page by removing sources and not participating in the talk) --User:Kashk05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: That doesn't look like 4 reverts to me, they are different edits. Kashk is adding an authoritative source that was removed without any explanation on talk, in two of those edits. --ManiF05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor, it is in no way limited to reverting to the same version. Kashk undid Aucaman's edit's four times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIranian peoples (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ManiF (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:AucamanTalk07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Yet another revert-warrrrrrior. Just violated 3RRRRR. (Sorry I seem to be stutterrrring.) This one actually labels his reverts as reverts, so it should be more straight-forwarrrrd.AucamanTalk07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Aucaman, I'd appricite it if you didn't label me a "revert-warrrrrrior" or any such names, please checkWP:CIVIL. My fourth edit is not a revert. Furthermore, if you look at myfourth edit, you'd see thatUser:Xebat was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by adding an absurd amount of tags to the article (borderline vandalism) contrary to the consensus on talk. --ManiF07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Fourth revert was not revertingsimple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIranian peoples (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SouthernComfort (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:AucamanTalk07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Yet anotherr one. This one has done it at least 6 times (see the history page for more), but these are the obvious reverts. Can someoneplease attend to these before they get trolled?AucamanTalk07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not vandalism if the person was already participating in the talks and finds the content of the article disputable. His name appears more than any other name in talks and he's obviously concerned about the accuracy of the article. The word vandalism should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. The article is clearly disputed (in fact it's even protected now), but users such asUser:SouthernComfort have been constantly taking off the disputed tags. I also didn't include some of the other reverts (this andthis). Are these vandalisms too? It would be unfair if he gets away with all this.AucamanTalk08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Fourth revert was not revertingsimple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIranian peoples (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Xebat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSimonStrelchik (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Leotardo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Samaritan08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User:Pm shef has posted three 3RR warning templates onUser talk:Leotardo and in edit summaries, as Leotardo continued to repeatedly and tenditiously revert edits by Pm shef,User:Bearcat and myself. Leotardo's relevant interest here is substituting the real title of a newspaper article in external links,Kadis seeks re-election in largest Jewish riding, first for a problematically generic name of hir own, then for that article's photo caption, which sie claims is the title. Leotardo disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having readWikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies toundoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that."Samaritan08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Tricky one, but there were at least 5 reverts. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPartial-birth abortion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Goodandevil (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Alienus09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:They refused to go to Talk, initially. After multiple reversions from multiple editors, they went to Talk, then ignored a clear consensus. They were informed about the 3RR violation and chose to continue. I consider this very much an open-and-shut case.Alienus09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Additional Comments byMusical Linguist: First three reverts seem to be clear reverts. The fourth may or may not be a revert. Certainly, it's not a revert to the previous Goodandevil version. I'm not saying that it isn't a revert, but without extensive examination, I can't see whether it's just an edit or an edit which incorporates a partial revert. The fifth is an edit which reinserts "common" and "descriptive term", which Alienus had removed in his own fifth revert, though Alienus spaced his reverts outside of 24 hours.(Hey, if I had done four reverts, I wouldn't be showing myself at this page to report another person's violations; I'd be keeping very quiet and hoping that no admin would examine the history of that article. Nobody would have seenyour violation if you hadn't made your report here, Alienus.) The "common" and "descriptive" can be seen by examining side by side Alienus's revert of Goodandevil[1] and Goodandevil's edit-incorporating-a-revert of Alienus's version.[2] Anyway, I'm not going to block, as I have experience with both editors,but I would point out that if one is blocked, the other must be also. I'll report Alienus in a new section.AnnH♫11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Fourth revert was not a revert, but the fifth was. —Ruud12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIranian peoples (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aucaman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Comments: OnIranian peoples, there are eleven reversions of others' edits byUser:Aucaman within 5 hours. ([6],[7],[8],[9][10],[11],[12],[13],[14].[15], and[16]) --ManiF09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok,1st(2nd)2nd3rd followed by adding disputed or related tags several times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChristian terrorism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).61.58.53.139 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:JJay14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNicolaus Copernicus (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Matcreg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Sciurinæ15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked... 8h. Unless you can provide more on the socks stuffWilliam M. Connolley15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. 24hWilliam M. Connolley12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAnte Starčević (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Purger (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:EurowikiJ16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Both you and Purger (I assume Purqer = Purger; I've indef-blocked Purqer) have broken 3RR, so I shall block you both. You both know about the rule... have 12h eachWilliam M. Connolley16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
William, I am so sorry for the previous comment. I completely missed your point thinking that you were intent on blocking me. It took me awhile to realize that the reported user was using two ALMOST identical user-names. Once again, my apologies.EurowikiJ17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You have most certainly broken 3RR. Unfortunately due to my incompetence I seem to have failed to have blocked you, sorry about that. Also you get some credit for marking all your reverts as such. Treat this as a warning I guess :-)
Note to other admins: there is Purger and Purqer. Purger denies being Purqer. They made the same reverts. I've indef blocked Purqer.
William M. Connolley22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
EurowikiJ22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAdana (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onArmenian Genocide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).85.1.89.101 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --Hectorian18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The user is aware of the3RR cause i informed him/her here[17].This user has been removing info from the article and personally attacking other users, such as here[18], and also vandalising the article as seen in his/her edits.--Hectorian18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
One more revert that he/she has made, the 5th so far18:09, 27 March 2006 --Hectorian18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCeltic Park (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.140.253.251 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported by:Bmpower20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Clear 3rr violation. User should have added to discussion page as asked.Bmpower20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCapital punishment (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nrcprm2026 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported byFWBOarticle20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments A typical true believer. I also advice him in tak page to self revert to avoid sanction. Not sure if he saw my advice or not. Given the state of his profile page, I'm quite sure he is aware of the rule. Nothing happened so I'm reporting.FWBOarticle20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the bias dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. --James S.21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand what it meant by "but include differences, not old versions". It either I misunderstand 3rr or I misunderstand how to present violation of 3rr.
James taging is essentially the same. Near identical text content. While people who revert his tag either simply delete his tag or replace it with NPOV dispute tag, he always revert it back to the same thing. Is it enough to evade 3rr simply by making slight alteration in revet? In such case, 3rr would be so easy to evade that it would be meaningless.FWBOarticle
Three revert rule violation onSimonStrelchik (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Samaritan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
And more recently:
Reported by:Poche120:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:: Samaritan continues to violate the 3RR rule with these 2 sets of reverts, the first being 6 reverts in 22 hours, the second being 4 reverts in 14 hours. Samaritan disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that." As well, he continues to add content which violates the NPOV.
Three revert rule violation onElliott Frankl (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ohnoitsjamie (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Poche120:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:: Ohnoitsjamie continues to revert the article changes and redirect the page because in his opinion, "consensus has been reached."
I have to say that seeing a trusted editor being blocked on the accusations of an obvious sock (which has not even edited the talk page of the article in question!) is more than a bit disturbing to me. Simple checking shows thatUser:Ohnoitsjamie was reverting vandalism (pretty simple vandalism in my opinion) that was in opposition to consensus. The listing here was done in obvious bad faith by the suspected sock, and as such I think an apology from the blocking admin is in order. This may sound harsh, but we all make mistakes. It is unfair to brand a good editor with such an offence. Even if he is unblocked now, remember that for those of us not yet admins, such a stain is quite horrifying and requires explanation.pschemp |talk20:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSeptember 11, 2001 attacks (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.136.10.10 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Golbez23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The IP first reverted his changes to the table twice. Then he made another edit, changing the number in the intro. Then he made two edits in a row, changing the table and the intro, thus registering four reverts in toto. I have reverted him four times as well, so I submit myself for judgment as well, though my final revert was to revert his 3RR-violation. --Golbez23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLiberal democracy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pmanderson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ultramarine23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The arbcom has warned him previously for sterile revert warring.[23] Attempts of hide the reverts by some minor differences in words in some of them, but each time reverting the edits of three other editors. Shown differently:
Response: The underlying issue here is the inclusion of a map representing one reasonable, but disputable, set of opinions on "Which are the present liberal democracies?". SeeTalk:liberal democracy#Map and the section above it.
What 3RR violation?Septentrionalis00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The arbcom ruling prohibits sterile reversions. This is Ultramarine's record today:
Septentrionalis00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNanking Massacre (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Caiqian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),Sumple (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and/orFWBOarticle (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Depends on where one start counting the revert
Reported by:FWBOarticle23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:My understanding is that 3rr favour status quo because 3rd revert suppose to end up in the original state. On this understanding, I did not count the initial revert to a month old version to be the first revert. However, I have stated both version of count as a part of good faith edit. And warned anyone who revert that they may violate 3rr. Sumple nor Caiqian do not seems to care. I have reported myself to be fair. Because the revert is wholesale, it is difficult to respond except by another wholesale revert. I'm not sure whether adding small modification every time one revert is enough to avoid 3rrv. If so, I would have done the same but essentially the whole sale revert could continue indefintely.FWBOarticle23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPersian Jews (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).200.118.111.122 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
reported by-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJehovah's Witnesses (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).217.76.144.121 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Lucy23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The editor continues to make the same addition to the opening paragraph whilst refusing to participate in any discussion regarding the issue on the talk page.
Three revert rule violation onDental amalgam controversy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Dr. Imbeau (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jersyko·talk02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has been notified on his/her talk page as well as in an edit summary on the article itself to be careful to adhere to 3RR. Made his/her fifth reversion in defiance of warning. The user's only edits are to this article.
Three revert rule violation onSeventh-day Adventist Church.Perspicacious (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Fermion03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this page. If you count suspected sock puppets, such asUser talk:216.119.158.207 thenUser:Perspicacious has violated by more than just four edits.
Three revert rule violation onTaiwan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Moveapage (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jiang06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onAnte Starcevic (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).EurowikiJ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
he was warned about this, but despite broke the 3RRAlso violated 3RR atTourism in Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).EurowikiJ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
and again:
Also made 4 reverts in a bit more than 24 hours in[40]
Comments:He is well aware of the rule, makes complaints himself. In fact, he seems to game the 3RR. He was supposed to be banned, apparently has avoided ban for 3RR by a mistake of an administrator[41] shortly after this, he breaks 3RR again on two articles, and games it on third[42]. Has engaged in revert wars for weeks.Maayaa09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on contextMaayaa
I feel I should warn that an anonymous IP has reverted both articles back to my version. For all I know this may be foul play. In any case it has nothing to do with me.EurowikiJ12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCrompton House (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).200.27.187.52 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jhamez8413:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has been most stubborn and persistent in altering known facts. I as well as other members have been most displeased and incresingly frustrated in his behaviour. The problem stems from a location. It is not a disputed territory, but he wishes to remove the mention of theMetropolitan Borough of Oldham from theCrompton House page (which was his school) and also theShaw and Crompton page, most probably due to the so-called stigma attached to it's large south asian popultaion and past racial rioting. The user has been blocked before, (see {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:213.122.143.43_.26_related_IP.27s] ). He places an outdated/discontinued (legally and otherwise) version of geography on the article which directly contradicts the Wikipedia policy of the offical naming conventions (see[43] for the evidence that the member is indeed vandalising).
There are also further problems, I have asked for semi-protection for these pages but it wasn't granted and he refuses to accept consensus, constantly altering pages with no knownledge of how to properly format an article, and against the wishes of the members involved. To circumvent his previous blocking he is using non-static IP address (dynamic IP rolling) and admits as such here[44]. He has no static home page with which to formally warn him, his IP addresses are seemingly limitless and really need some support from and authoritative member to step in on the articles forsaid! His other known IP addresses are 213.122.74.210, 213.122.128.186, 81.131.22.118, 213.122.33.211, 213.122.72.151, 213.122.87.239, 81.131.68.146, 213.122.125.60, 81.131.64.166, 201.31.253.132 etc etc etc! I would appreciate a blanket block on him (if indeed possible) and be eternally grateful for some support on the articles. Thank youJhamez8413:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPhaistos Disc (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).80.90.38.96 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Latinus16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 48 hours for second offense. Also blocked otehr IP for same time and will semiprotect.Gator(talk)18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onOperation_Iraqi_Freedom_Documents (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RonCram (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:User:RyanFreisling@17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: RonCram, who has made numerous edits around the 'Iraqi Freedom Documents' representing claims as fact without citations of factual sources (he insteads cites allegations), has violated 3RR in his multi-front edit war. Instead of responding to the content at issue, he has continually reverted, claiming his edits are substantiated in talk - while no updated sources or substantiation is provided. Separate from the content dispute, the combative revert warring needs to stop.
OK, 24hWilliam M. Connolley19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAbortion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pro-Lick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:RoyBoy80018:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I'd like the block to be extended to 48 hours this time; as the user has continually engaged in WikiLawyering and edit warring. I should also note I've had extensive reverts and encounters with the user recently. But I think it would be fair to say, the user on balance has been disruptive and combative. -RoyBoy80018:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't see #2 as a revert. But the other 3 areWilliam M. Connolley19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I would maintain edit 2 though was POV and innaccurate; as Brind did not create the ABC link. Here is an alternative to #2, which I will call #5. -RoyBoy80022:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Additional Comments fromMusical LinguistI agree that the second revert was probably not a revert, though it's sometimes hard to be sure with partial reverts. However, the "5th revert"is a revert, as it's yet another attempt to remove the word "death", which Pro-Lick has been doing ever since he arrived at that article. See[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52] (with abusive edit summary),[53],[54], and[55]. That's eleven removals of the word death in less than two days. And it went on and on after that, between 3RR blocks.
In addition to the removal of "death", the edit which RoyBoy calls the "5th revert" (above) is also a revert tothis edit, which Pro-Lick made three days ago. Please check it out.
He also tries to "game the system" by adding things which have the same purpose, but which are technically not reverts to a previous version. See[56],[57],[58]. The last of those grossly misrepresents something I said on the talk page, and is almost certainly trying tomake a point. It has the effect of a revert, and would have brought him over the 3RR on that day, if he hadn't changed "virus" to "bacteria".
He has been highly disruptive, regularly posting irrelevant and disrespectful links to the talk page[59], deleting other editors' comments from his own talk page[60], and either violating 3RR or simply reverting and reverting in violation of consensus, but placing reverts just outside of the 24-hour period.AnnH♫00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGulf War (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ahwaz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ManiF20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Clear case of 3rr violation by user Ahwaz onGulf War. Furthermore, the user Ahwaz has broken 3RR numerous times over the last two weeks on other articles such asArabs of Khuzestan. --ManiF20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onStrabane (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).172.202.220.213 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Demiurge22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Original submission[61]
Reverts: (All 28.03.2006 GMT)
Reported by:Agathoclea22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Original submission[67]
Reverts: (All 29.03.2006 GMT)
Comments
Seems immature and disrespectful (seeTalk:Persian Jews), but is editing in an encyclopedic spirit, if not form.
Reported by:black thorn of brethil02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The last edit is not a revert as I changed it to make it more acceptable as the discussion the talk page shows. Also Black thorn repeatedly added material not supported by any source other than his own thoughts on the matter, as can also be seen on the talk page. However after I was warned I decided against making any more reverts just in case.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCobra Video (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.54.90.231 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
This IP address was banned previously for reverts without justification, and is back at it as soon as the ban was lifted. I'm including SchmuckyTheCat's comments regarding this user for posterity.
Please ban 24.54.90.231 permanently given the long history.
Natoma05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPlasma cosmology (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ScienceApologist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Elerner06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Its *c*osmology... argh. I'm somewhat involved with SA so won't do anything; however it looks to me as thoughIantresman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) should be examined, tooWilliam M. Connolley16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Massive violation during edit dispute onAcupuncture
[[72]]
Mccready11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGerman Empire (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Molobo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Chris 73 |Talk13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Molobo is a well known revert warrior, having been blocked for a 3RR about 9 times before, 4 times alone in this month. See also above for 3RR accusation on Otto Bismarck--Chris 73 |Talk13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Also you are mistaken as they are two different contents here that have been related.. Had I restored tag over 3 times or info over 3times I agree that could be considered violation of 3RR however this isn't the case. Also you are mistaken-I was blocked on 3 times for 3RR, one of which was sadly for restoration of my comments on discussion page that were being deleted and which sadly is considered 3RR also.--Molobo13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the text that I believe states that removing tags is vandalism. In this case the tag was removed without any comment to my statement on proper discussion page where I explained why the tag was added:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VandalismImproper use of dispute tags. Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. --Molobo13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text.See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3RRFor the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:
Removing a tag without any explanation and without adressing the issue on discussion page seemed to me like simple vandalism.--Molobo13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear pan Molobo, the things you do may be classified as tag vandalism. I believe we need a separate policy on those who, without contributing anything helpful, add tons of tags on any article they cast their eyes on. Please stop vandalizing existing articles and write some new ones at last. --Ghirla-трёп-14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather sick of people trying to pretend that they are reverting "simple vandalism" as an excuse for their edit warring. Molobo has form and get 1 week for thisWilliam M. Connolley15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKurdish people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Zanyar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ManiF15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: In breach of 3RR, the user also looks like a sock-puppet to evade 3RR. --ManiF15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onYogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Adityanath (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Hamsacharya dan18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChad "Corntassel" Smith (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Johnc1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Guettarda01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAdolf Hitler (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byUser:Musical_Linguist.
Normally I wouldn't bother, but breaking the rule just minutes after warning me on my talk page not to do it is just too cheeky. This user is edit warring big time while presenting a 'butter wouldn't melt' face, and could do with a cooling off period.Bengalski12:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRon Dellums.Calton (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Justforasecond15:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: 24 hrs 36 mins
Let's see, that makes25 hours 19 minutes. Congratulations, we can add "hypocrisy" to the long list of words Justforasecond seems to have trouble with. --Calton |Talk01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. --Dmitry20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAmbient music (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gene_Poole (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:GraemeL(talk)03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Re-insering lots of external links that violate bothWP:NOT a web directory and policy on commercial links.
Editor does not appear to know how to count:
Three revert rule violation onAn Anarchist FAQ (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).infinity0 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:RJII04:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Not only is a violating the 3RR but he keeps deleting the NPOV tag when a POV dispute is going on that he's involved in. Some of those reverts above show that. But also, he's done it a few times more outside of the 24 hour period. For example,[84] and[85] That in itself deserves some kind of block, in my opinion. It's really disruptive. I and others have been putting the tag in so the dispute can be resolved on the Talk page but he's trying to disrupt the whole process at arriving at a consensus.
And, if that's not enough, he deletes any mention on the Talk page that he's deleting the NPOV template --essentially vandalizing the talk page.[86][87]
By three minutes, this is technically not a violation of theletter of 3RR, but Lou definitely violated thespirit (as Chesaguy noted in his edit summaryhere). He has gamed the system in this way previously andhas been blocked six times in the past for 3RR violations committed in the course of edit warring atSocietal attitudes towards homosexuality.
(all times are by my clock; I'm not quite sure how that translates to UTC)
Reported by:Hbackman04:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKlingon language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Prosfilaes (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:E Pluribus Anthony04:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User warned on article talk page. Essentially a content dispute: for some days, user has been removing and believes that an episodic (canonical) reference to Klingon is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the Wp article about the same topic. There is no restriction on whether or not said fictional references need to concern the fictional language or the constructed one, and thesourced reference/quote fully conforms to WPverifiability andStar Trek Wikiproject guidelines.E Pluribus Anthony |talk |05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAntony Beevor (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SS451 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Nixer06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onPayson High School (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jonsiebob (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Mangojuice05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onRules of war in Islam (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aminz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onJizya (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aminz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onDhimmi (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aminz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PecherTalk10:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user was warned twice on the talk page[93][94]. Aminz apparently accepts being blocked for 3RR as visible from comments on my talk page and from edit summaries in the fourth reverts: "passing 3RR; getting blocked because of Truth is an honor", and has already said that will continue editing from an anonymous account after being blocked: "Even if I get blocked, I can always work as an anonymous editor"[95].PecherTalk10:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRamona Amiri (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rugsnotbombs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi21:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Seems quite blatant, nad removed your warnings: 24hWilliam M. Connolley21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRepublic of Macedonia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Realek (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Latinus21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Looks a fair cop guv. 24h this timeWilliam M. Connolley21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUranium trioxide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nrcprm2026 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:82.41.26.24421:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The paragraph on "Combustion products of uranium" keeps getting re-inserted. This edit war has spilled over from elsewhere (Depleted uranium, to be precise) and is part of a case that is now at arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium), after a mediation effort failed. The edit war has been simmering for a while; the version that is constantly reverted away from (14:42, 29 March 2006) is quite like what was put together byUser:Physchim62, who was the mediator.
Three revert rule violation onOperation Barbarossa (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kurt_Leyman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Deng22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors User also goes around in other articles and makes small changes that alter what has originally been said.
Three revert rule violation onPeyton Manning (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.154.62.149 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:W.marsh22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked 3h for first offenceWilliam M. Connolley10:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGay Nigger Association of America (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SlashDot (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Kickstart70·Talk23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this to be a case of sockpuppets and the user going anonymous in order to not technically violate the 3RR. Can we get some help here? Both users have been warned about reversions. Looking through the history of both users, their behavious is similar (and usually suspect).Kickstart70·Talk23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTurkish people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).-Inanna- (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --Hectorian02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The user has repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and she is totally aware of that. --Hectorian02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIslam (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).81.136.201.210 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
BLocked for 24 hours. —Ruud20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Sockpuppet (edit | [[Talk:Template:Sockpuppet|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sunfazer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Locke Cole •t •c21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onEOKA (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jeune Zuercher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User was warned about 3RRhere. --Khoikhoi22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours.Geni22:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule (although he made much more reverts) violation onKosovo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Ilir_pz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Boris Malagurski₪00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Some quotes of Ilirpz in the Edit Summary
He has also made a bunch of reverts to other articles related to Kosovo, just look at his users contributionshere. The user is fully aware of the 3rd revert rule, and he was warned, but continues to revert. --Boris Malagurski₪03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I suspect he has been using sockpuppets,throwaway accounts andIP spoofing to bypass the 3RR rule.Asterion00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Its 4R in 24h, not *ever*William M. Connolley08:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, this sucks, he always waits for a while, and then revertsall of the changes back to his original ones. Then how do you propose we stop him? He never negotiates, replies every argument with "dream on", "you nationalist" and "no comment", reverts the article, and waits for a while, and reverts the whole thing again. Should we just let him keep doing that? --
Boris Malagurski₪08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, how long do I have to wait untill someone blocks this guy? Do I have to repeat what he said when he was told to stop reverting - "I told you I am determined about the cause I am fighting for. It is my country in question." and "As long as it takes, ready for anything for my loving country - Kosova (reverting is 0.0000000000000001% of what I am ready to do)... To hell together with Milloshevic". What are you guys waiting for? --Boris Malagurski₪23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hellooooo???
Ilir pz09:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:Wikiethics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiethics|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).User:Netscott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
On the archived polls page of the proposalWikipedia:Wikiethics,User:Netscott vandalizes and strikes edits by another user withhis POVand starts an edit war. He violates 3RR in the following edits:
Reported by:Resid Gulerdem02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User:Netscott vandalizes and strikes edits by another user withhis POVand starts an edit war.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRgulerdem (talk •contribs)
Not blocked, this is only 3 reverts. Warned. .:.Jareth.:.babelfish04:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archived_Polls,_Apr_1,_06 (edit|talk|links|history|watch).Rgulerdem (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Netscott03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Rgulerdem has been properlynotified of this report.Netscott03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User:Rgulerdem is reverting my striking of inaccurate Poll Summary results that he previously added (see first link).User:Rgulerdem waswarned of his potential for 3RR violation prior to this report.Netscott03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked, 3 hours. .:.Jareth.:.babelfish04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKosovo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Asterion (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ilir pz08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The reverts mentioned above are just 4 recent ones, as the user has been reverting many more times in the near past. The abovementioned user accuses others who do not agree with him/her, and instead justifies his reverts using a language which seems as if he/she is doing a just revert like "Someone messed up the infobox formatting", or "RV bad faith edit" or "RV bad faith edit with misleading description". What he/she in fact is doing is rise the tensions in the page. The user is clearly not from the region and instead supports extreme nationalist forces that caused theKosovo_war. Additionally the user reverts any content that has to do with the majority populations (Albanians) aspirations in Kosovo. The topic is very sensitive, and it is important to stop such attempts by irresponsible users. If you note from the user's contributions, you can see that he/she keeps reverting elsewhere, constantly as well. If you look atUser:HolyRomanEmperor,User:Bormalagurski andUser:Gianni_ita's additions and reverts one gets suspicious the the abovementioned might be sockpuppets of one of the users mentioned above. They revert exactly the same content from the very important article. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Ilir pz08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious that Ilir is only reporting the alleged breaking of the "3rd revert rule" because he was reported himself. Asterion has reverted his nationalist edits, because Ilir seems to think Kosovo is an independent country, even though the UN still consider it a province of Serbia, and there are talks about Kosovo's status in Vienna. Asterion has rightfully reverted Ilir's edits, and he shouldn't be blocked for stoping vandalism. Also, calling me a sockpuppet is a cheap shot. --Boris Malagurski₪08:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSvika Pick (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Haham hanuka (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:gidonb16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: User has an extremely rich history of bans after the breaking of many rules. The Hebrew Wikipedia permanently banned him. See also:talk:Yigal Amir, the information in frames.gidonb16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onYogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hamsacharya_dan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Adityanath20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
counter-3RR filing here[108]
Three revert rule violation onWizards (film) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ibaranoff24 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: He's been removing a quote on the movie because he's a Bakshi fan; he has started throwing around accusations of vandalism.Prosfilaes00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The fourth diff does not seem to be a revert. I will place a warning in in talk page.≈ jossi ≈t •@00:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBattle_of_Manzikert (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Miskin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Macrakis00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Edit warring between Miskin and Adkagansu. --Macrakis00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true, I have nothing to do with that article. However, I have experienced Miskin's unproductive edit warring on other pages and thought that administrators should be aware of this latest effort. It seems unlikely that Miskin was unaware of the 24h rule, since he has flirted with the 3RR rule for a long time, on many articles. --Macrakis15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBattle_of_Manzikert (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Adkagansu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Macrakis00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Edit warring between Miskin and Adkagansu. Note that the near-reverts above are reverts to an old version which loses all the more recent edits, with trivial changes (dabs). --Macrakis00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNath (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Adityanath (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comment: This is his second recent violation. Very clearcut. Please see my comments under[110].
Three revert rule violation onDavid Deangelo.WoodenBuddha (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:DutchSeduction17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User WoodenBuddha is attempting to censor out criticism from the article, the neutrality of which is heavily in dispute. Each one of his reverts is a different attack on the reference, which is a nonprofit one, the only such noncommercial site that could be found on the subject.
SeeTalk:David DeAngelo and comments by user RobChurch for more details.DutchSeduction17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments on all related pages. DutchSeduction is tirelessly promoting his members-only site, which appears to contain, on the surface, none of the promised criticism. Apparently this is only available to registered members. He repeatedly refers to his site (which has AdWords on) as non-profit. He keeps referring to a term he claims is commonly used in the community "Cocky and Playful", although the exact phrase changes from edit-to-edit. As you can see from my edits a while back on the David DeAngelo page, I've been quick to remove any non-qualified promotion of his material - you can see where I remove comments about him being a 'great pickup artist'.
The site that DutchSeduction continually spams is one of many many community lairs. It just happens that he runs this one. As I've said in comments, if he wants to link to anything that appears relevant, great, otherwise, he's just blindly reverting back to keep the link to his site in, despite warnings from administrators.
WoodenBuddha17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to further point out I was not aware of the 3RR rule prior to this, and shall endeavour, as I already have, to involve the administrators concerning DutchSeduction, in the future. Apologies for all the hassle being caused here.
WoodenBuddha17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
To address this WoodenBuddha's comments in order:1. Free registration sites are permissable. See user RobChurch's comments onTalk:David Deangelo for details. The site has registration to prevent commercial spamming and meatpuppets.2. There is extensive criticism of DeAngelo's techniques, about 2 year's worth in the site's archives.3. The adwords are only there because it is a term of service onInvisionfree.com, the free site on which the archives are hosted. Ad removal costs money.4. The term has always been P&C, "playful and confident." WoodenBuddha is trying to attack it because he doesn't agree with the criticism.5. I don't run the site. Like I've said repeatedly, it's run by a nonprofit foundation, one of very few non-commercial foundations in the community.
As RobChurch points out, the criticism of Deangelo is valid, so the reference should stand.DutchSeduction18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSeduction Community.WoodenBuddha (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:DutchSeduction17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Second instance ofUser:WoodenBuddha attempting to insert additional POV references to commercial sites. The link he keeps trying to replace is another neutral nonprofit.DutchSeduction18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
With another site that you control. At the same time. Could you not just have rolled it in to the above reference? I'd also be interested in how this constitutes POV? Thanks.
WoodenBuddha18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't control either site. POV is a bias toward your commercial references. It is possible to include both, but let's please observe 3RR and stop reverting wars.DutchSeduction18:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sorry. You are founding member and technical administrator of both sites. I guess you could claim not to 'control' on a technicality. Please additionally note there are three reverts of the same page by you that I could link to here - you have also broken the 3RR rule. I note that you've removed an administrator's warning that you stop linking to your site from your talk page.
WoodenBuddha19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
WoodenBuddha is saying things that are patently false. The sites he is referring to are both objective non-commercial sources managed by nonprofit organizations. The "administrator's warning" was incorrect. Admin RobChurch verified the information onDavid Deangelo and ruled WoodenBuddha out.
WoodenBuddha's remarks are only counter-attack. Other editors have decided to keep all of the links in as it was POV to censor them out in the first place. Like Agathoclea has said, chill out, and stop attacking the page.DutchSeduction09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
DutchSeduction - please stop the slander. Please look at the revision history for Seduction Community, and see the huge amount of work I've put in to it, as opposed to your readding your links. It makes it much harder for genuine contributors when you do this. I note additionally you've started to accuse the other editor who spends time working on this as a 'sock puppet' because he didn't agree with you. Will you start attacking him now too? I was content to let the issue rest, much as I think it shouldn't - so smear campagins where you refer to me 'attacking the page' or 'commercial revert spam' are really unhelpful. I note that you've not rebutted the fact that you are the founder of both sites that are 'run by nonprofit organizations', or provided any proof that this is the case. I've given up trying to remove your adcruft from the pages - it's not worth the effort. So please stop your smear campaign and bullying tactics, or go find someone else to attack, and let the people who contribute content do their job.
WoodenBuddha10:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGeorge Remus (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).66.161.74.251 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Kafziel20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onRepublic of Macedonia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Korab (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: NikoSilver (T)@(C)00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Please note that there is extensive POV edit-warring taking place in the said article. The user above is a new user, and possibleWP:SOCK of opposing users (eg.User:Bitola,User:Realek,User:Bomac). NikoSilver (T)@(C)00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onHoward Stern (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.147.51.38 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Lostkiwi00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This anonymous user has made the same revert 4 times in 3 days and been temporarly suspended twice and he continues to make the same edit without providing any support for his move. a longer suspension seems required.
Three revert rule violation onTaipei American School (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).63.201.35.145 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:BenjaminTsaiTalk00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Reverts, tries to insert material that is borderline vandaliasm in nature (one line comment on janitors which doesn't make any sense). Tries to push his POV in talk even when people try to discuss the situation rationally.
Three revert rule violation onMusic of Turkey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.145.231.194 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Metb8214:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:deleting information and making personal attacks with offensive language
Three revert rule violation onAntony Beevor (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nixer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Calton |Talk01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Attempts to continually insert "controversialBritishhistorianand publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias" into intro, and the same essentially unaltered criticism of the subject. --Calton |Talk01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onConsciousness (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ndru01 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Alienus22:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:In addition to edit-warring, this user is violating OR and POV, as well as flatly ignoring consensus. They've been warned and reverted by multiple people on multiple articles but just don't seem to understand how things work here. In addition, the basic content itself is of highly questionable quality, besides the complete lack of citations and frequent lack of relevance. I am asking not only for a ban but for an admin to sit this person down and explain things to them in a way that will actually get through.
Seems to have calmed down. WarnedWilliam M. Connolley12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNational Alliance (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.131.245.179 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Repeated insertion of anti-semitic POV against multiple restoring editors.
No warning... can have a token 3h blockWilliam M. Connolley12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSingapore (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NSLE (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and 69.237.1.159 / 69.239.63.175 (The two IPs seem to be the same person.)
I find it pretty troublesome for NSLE, who is an admin, to have revert war with another user. As I saw in the edit history, that unregistered user was only trying to make the format of the Chinese name and the Tamil name consistent. But NSLE treated it as vandalism - just because he didn't like the format that another user proposed, and reverted the article for more than three times. Every time he reverted the article, he restored an error in the "pinyin" romanization of the Chinese name. While " Xīnjiāpō Gònghéguó " should be two "words", he kept grouping them back into one "word", until I fixed that error for them. He stopped the edit that he didn't like by blocking the article. This is obviously an abuse of his admin power.
Reported by:Alan05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Uhm, reporting this two days later? If you have a problem with conduct, an RfC would be more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:.babelfish13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's revert warring in particular ... perhaps it's just the popular perception against anonymous users, especially ones who don't provide edit summaries to see it as "vandalism", but that is unfortunate.Ellevécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!)01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
No edit war here.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔(Talk)ContributionsChat with Tdxiang on IRC!10:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLutsk (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kuban_kazak (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:134.84.5.5222:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User:Kuban kazak is persistently adding a city name in Russian language (Луцк) into the first paragraph of the article in front of Polish name. The Russian language name of the Ukrainian city has no value for the English Wikipedia; when translated from Russian into English the name of the city isLutsk, which isexactly the same as a translation from Ukrainian into Russian.
[discussion trimmed] KK is innocent (!?! :-). 134.84.5.52 is guilty: blocked 24hWilliam M. Connolley09:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.154.45.142 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:WarriorScribe02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onState University of New York at Stony Brook (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JoeMele (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:BRossow04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user continues to revert the article in question following the removal of his name (added by himself) from the list of notable alumni of the school. He clearly is not notable by virtually anyone's standards, let alone those ofWP:BIO. His reversions have lost numerous copyedits to the article in addition to the removal of his name from the list. He's dangerously close onAutism rights movement as well. He has brought his attacks to my own Talk page as well as the Talk page of the latter article. (Having said all of this, I recognize that I am close to 3RR myself but have no intentions of crossing that line, so no need to point it out. :-) )⇒BRossowT/C04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLibertarianism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pat8722 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Rhobite04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
RJII and pal Rhobite teemed up this evening to vandalize thelibertarian page with a CIRCULAR definition of libertarianism. Rhobite has been reverting to the circular definition of RJII on grounds he does not like use of quote marks, or of dual accurate defintions. Rather than removing the quotes or removing one of the two dual accurate definitions, Rhobite and RJII have been maliciously and repeatedly reverting to RJII's CIRCULAR definition. Rhobite had/has a means to modify the use of quotes or to remove either of the accurate definitions if he chooses, by simply editing them out, instead he is reverting to the CIRCULAR defintion of RJII. I propose Rhobite be BANNED for vandalism.pat872204:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, what I revoked was simple vandalism, therefore your revocation of my edit privledges violates the admin policy regarding 3rr revocations. As I am relatively new to wiki, please advice me on the procedure for requesting that your admin powers be revoked for very obvious abuse thereof (i.e. you were required to ascertain whether I had revoked simple vandalism as I had stated, before revoking my edit privileges.)pat872218:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OnCrystal Palace (chat site), an article that had unanimous consensus to merge in December 2005, but was recreated by a vandal and the vandalism went undetected for 5 months. I got rid of the vandalism, and Hogtied got rid of my reversions, saying I was a vandal. Of course we both think we were getting rid of vandalism, but we certainly breached 3RR. There's what 10 reverts each in an hour or so. Unfortunately, the excuse of ignorance doesn't cut it, as I gave him links that proved things, he just refused to look at them. I am happy to take my 24 hour block for it. We both should get one I think.59.167.131.817:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGunpowder (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Eiorgiomugini (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onGunpowder (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).KarlBunker (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onList of Arab scientists and scholars (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jidan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --ManiF20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User:Jidan knows the 3RR rule very well as he's was recently blocked for it, and was warned about it again yesterday.[141] --ManiF20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onScary Movie 4 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Cigammagicwizard (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:⇒SWATJester
ReadyAimFire!00:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User added a large number of pictures under fair use. They were removed as excessive and clutter-some to the article, and possibly a fair use violation. He's reverted them back in 4 times, and expressed intention to game the system "I know. I'm reverting less than 3 times a day. Didn't you notice? And, how do you know that other people are reverting more than 3 times. I've seen people do it but they won't get blocked"[143]. User has been blocked before for bad-editing.
Three revert rule violation onGunpowder (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Eiorgiomugini (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:KarlBunker10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNorman Finkelstein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ragout (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:User:Ragout has admitted he violated 3RR on the talk page[149].
Reported by:Deuterium10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLaissez-faire (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Will Beback (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --Northmeister18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Will Beback has violated 3RR after following me to this article as he has done in the past with myself and others. He had no prior interest here and is attempting to disrupt the work of several editors with his agenda which amounts to harassment. He has violated 3RR today and does not engage in adding material but simple deletion. Instead of going to talk and discussing first, he simply deletes and calls one of my edits a 'cruft'. This is not assuming good faith on his part. Had he discussed in Talk matters would be worked out, as I prefer collaboration with other editors. I ask a block because of his behavior here and that he work with us in the future to improve the article if he has questions on my or anyone elses edits. I do not like revert wars which are started by simple deletes of other editors work without discussion first; though I can see deleting in this manner for anonymous edits or obvious vandals or sock-puppets of others. This is not the case though. Please enforce the 3RR here and admonish Will Beback on good faith with others. --Northmeister18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onXeni Jardin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Matt N (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Christopherlin19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: What happens when the reverts are fast enough that the 4th revert is made before any warnings are posted on user talk pages? --Christopherlin 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Withdrawn per compromise. --Christopherlin04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onXeni Jardin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gerardm (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Christopherlin19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: What happens when the reverts are fast enough that the 4th revert is made before any warnings are posted on user talk pages? --Christopherlin20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Monicasdude (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Calton |Talk07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Editor, subject of a Request for Arbitration, keeps inserting his own accusation -- a dubious accusation, phrased as a fact (see first revert, especially) -- into the original request, unattributed, rather than relying on his own section.
Three revert rule violation onJami (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mel Etitis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ManiF10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Clear violation of 3RR. There is an ongoing dispute onTalk:Jami about the neutrality of a particular section of the article, in accordance withNPOV, butUser:Mel Etitis keeps unilaterally removing theNOPV tag, despite the objections of three users. --ManiF10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAbbe Land (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.70.66.28 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: –Tifego(t)06:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-04-08 07:22:46 Marudubshinki blocked "68.70.66.28 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (whoa, chill out man!)William M. Connolley11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:Wikiethics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiethics|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rgulerdem (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
This user has beenblocked many times already for violating 3RR on this article space.
Reported by: ॐMetta Bubblepuff07:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
And more content reverting:
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onBahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jeffmichaud (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Cuñado
-Talk08:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:I was making rolling edits while he was reverting.Cuñado -Talk
Seems fairly blatant, 24hWilliam M. Connolley11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation onGunpowder (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views),69.194.137.183 (talk ·contribs)
Reported by:KarlBunker03:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The last two are byUser:=Axiom=, a near-certain sockpuppet ofUser:69.194.137.183.User:=Axiom= was created today,afterUser:69.194.137.183 had "used up" his 3 reverts for the day. He immediately jumped into the fray to restore the edit thatUser:69.194.137.183 (and no one else) has been pushing for days or weeks, causing69.194.137.183 to be blocked for 3RR violations twice already.
Axiom has gone up to 4RR on his own now, rendering the puppetry moot. Blocked 24hWilliam M. Connolley09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCeltic F.C. (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Brandubh Blathmac (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Celtic F.C
Reported by: --Boothy443 | trácht ar08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Irish-Scots
Reported by:--Boothy443 | trácht ar09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user, akaRms125a@hotmail.com (talk •contribs), often syas that he editing for pov, but changes the club patch image from the offfical image to the flag of scotland, as well as incerting , as i see it, extreme anti-catholic POV into the ther article. The use has the tendancy to to similar actions to other articles as well, seeIrish-Scots andEamon de Valera. User also used misleading edit summaries to mask his reversions, exapmles:
I don't think this is 4RR, since the 1st edit was not a revert. I'll warn, thoughWilliam M. Connolley09:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
However, subsequently thoroughly broke 3RR and would have been blocked, except blocked indef elsewhereWilliam M. Connolley16:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAl-Aqsa Intifada (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deuterium (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jayjg(talk)15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Clear enough, 24hWilliam M. Connolley16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSelbstschutz (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sciurinæ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:--Molobo 16:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC) I am not sure but I think it is possible that the user violated 3RR, please check.--Molobo16:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Kosovo (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hipi Zhdripi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Asterion18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has been disregarding the facts and showing little respect for the work of other wikipedians. He was offered valid sources to prove his POV wrong but has continued to ignore this. He has also left inflamatory comments on other users talk pages and is acting as if he owns the template.Asterion18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
He or She has been editing under a sock IP address: Seehere,here,here andhere. I suggest an unspecified extension to the ban. Regards,Asterion02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The user also used a throwaway account while still under the 24h temporary block and proceeded to do several article namespace under the sockpuppetVete (see[161] and[162]).Asterion21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIrish-Scots (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).216.194.2.108 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Demiurge14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Sockpuppet ofRms125a@hotmail.com (talk ·contribs); seeWikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com.Demiurge14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUser talk:The Psycho (edit | [[Talk:User talk:The Psycho|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Comments: This is part of an ongoing problem with this user who has been reportedhere (please do look at that) but action has not been taken there yet. At issue is this user attempting to hide evidence of his spamming ("Jews did WTC" onGay Nigger Association of America, etc.), bad and false-fact edits (Digg, etc.), and repeatedly posting graphic images above and beyond what's needed to support articles (Lolicon,Hentai, etc.), by removing attempts to get resolution to these issues from his talk page. However, this is really an ongoing issue with this user, so I suggest looking through his contributions. --Kickstart70-T-C22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRon Geaves (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jim Heller (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:≈ jossi ≈t •@00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onSoviet partisan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Space_Cadet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Kuban Cossack.svg)
00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Reisertion of a biased, POV material (ie trolling), last revert was done specially to avoid block with additional "copyedits". --Kuban Cossack00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)SC has self-reverted anyway, so shouldn't be blocked. OTOH both SC and Molobo have been gratuitiously impolite in the edit comments so can have 12h apiece for thatWilliam M. Connolley14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPersian people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aucaman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Khoikhoi01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onTalk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lou franklin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Cleduc03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onNew World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Naturtrina (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported by:Ansell09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud09:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJulia Goldsworthy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.143.244.193 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Whouk(talk)11:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Repeated attempt to insert POV material despite requests by admins/other editors to stop, with refusal to engage on Talk. Now breaching 3RR too.
Three revert rule violation onAbortion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pro-Lick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:AnnH♫18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I personally don't count as separate reverts when a user makes a few partial reverts in a row and nobody has edited in between; it's just an easier way than doing a full page edit. That's why I've listed 4a and 4b instead of 4 and 5. To see that 4a really was a revert, please seehere,here, andhere. To see that 4b really was a revert, please seehere andhere.
See alsohere for account of disruption and sockpuppetry for block evasion, confirmed by checkuser. Then, please seePro-Lick's comment onWP:AN/I made earlier today after his rival on the abortion article had been blocked for 3RR, where Pro-Lick requests that another admin would increase the block because Goodandevil had "done this before", and because he had "actively used random IPs for sockpuppetry." (I'm not sure that's true, by the way. Goodandevil edited from IPs because he had some problem logging on, but as far as I am aware, he did not try to conceal his identity, and informed us at some stage that the logging on problem had been sorted out.)AnnH♫18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKellie Everts (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Reported by:Yankees7619:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User and sockpuppet has reverted 9 times since April 3rd, despite requests for citations and warnings. Has openely declared "You can't stop me from editing. I'll just pick up a new IP address and move on" So far has engaged in edit wars using 2 IP addresses.
Possibly the most incompetently formatted 3RR report I've ever seen, but the problem exists: 69.231.194.119 and 69.231.202.36 blocked for 24h. However HD is nothing to do with thisWilliam M. Connolley20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onInstitute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).64.230.120.237 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
User:64.230.120.237 has been very disruptive, and has continually added information soley from one extremley biased source which happens to be the subjest of the article. After being warned not to violate the 3RR after third revert both on edit summary and on his talk page he tried to hide his last revert by changing to a previous version and writing "rewrote lead to be more precise" even though with a little investigation it is clear that was another obvious revert.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems quote unrepentant; 24hWilliam M. Connolley20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAlbanians (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ilir_pz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Asterion20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has been disregarding the facts and showing little respect for the work of other wikipedians. He was offered valid sources to prove his POV wrong but has continued to ignore this.
24hWilliam M. Connolley21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBreast implant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).65.89.98.20 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
re "1996 French" study
and deleting commentarry of "Spanish STOA" study in same table
there are other edits to the same section, but none amounting to 3 revertions of same text
Three revert rule violation onBreast implant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jgwlaw (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
re deleting out the "1996 French" study
and in same section the "1991-1994 United Kingdom study"
and again additional edits to same section reverting (<x3)
Reported by:David RubenTalk01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This article is increasingly undergoing an edit war. I have tried in last few days to engage both parties on the talk page and suggested a bilateral ceasation of editing to theBreast implant#Rheumatology section's table for a couple of days whilst some consensus-building might be attempted in the talk page. I suspectUser:65.89.98.20 isUser:Droliver (the re-insertion edits are of this registered user and Jgwlaw's accusation in edit comments of being this editor are not being denied) who has engaged poorly in dialogue, has previously added mutliple study links (often without any citation detail markup). MeanwhileUser:Jgwlaw is tending to over delete cited studies as feels POV to include without providing detailled study-by-study critisms (e.g. of study funding causing possible conflict of interests).
I suspect the general current medical consensus is that problems from implants has not been convincingly confirmed, yet the FDA's critisms of "pro-implant" studies over methodology problems remains and (to date) the FDA continues to ban silicone implants. Both editors, in my view, are trying to add useful info, but are being overprotective of their position, failling to discuss for consensus, verging on not assuming good faith and are rapidly notching up large number of edits/reverts - some cooling down needs to be forced on the situation (informal dialogue seems to be failing and RfC seems required - but that is a separate issue from these 3RR violations).David RubenTalk01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My initial impressions are in accord withUser:Davidruben's view. The edit warring over this article has lasted for quite some time, and appears to be escalating. I am placing a short block on the parties concerned, including the IP. This is intended to prevent further revert wars, as well as provide an opportunity to the editors concerned to think about their actions and how they might best engage in thoughtful discussion on the article talk page to arrive at a mutually acceptable version. Regards —Encephalon04:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJoe Scarborough (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Reported by:Rhobite01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onBernie Sanders (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.161.193.55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Bkwillwm02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User from a rotating IP keeps making reverts onBernie Sanders. The user is thought to be the same judging by the contents of the changes, and the user signs discussion onTalk:Bernie Sanders asUser:71.161.193.55. The user has not been very open to discussing the claimed POV issues and trying to reach consensus. Reverts also remove material seemingly unrelated to the dispute. Since the user uses a rotating IP and is relatively new, a block might be difficult. I have given him a 3RR warning, but I'm involved in the dispute so one from an admin might help the problem and stop edit warring.
Three revert rule violation onRachel Marsden (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ceraurus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
That Ceraurus = Mark Bourrie see log under 22:57, 7 March 2006here
That Mark Bourrie = 70.25.91.205 is established byCheckUser here
Reported by:Bucketsofg02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Earlier blocks for 3RR violationshere as Mark Bourrie. His indefinite suspension for using sock-puppets to skirt 3RR was lifted on the understanding that he would limit himself to one account:here.
3RR violation onIsraeli settlement (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).AladdinSE (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment
AladdinSE has been engaged in complex partial reverts, reverting five times in just over two hours on April 11. He was offered the chance to revert himself but didn't respond.[172] He's familiar with the 3RR rule, has been blocked for it before,[173] and had the rule fully explained to him when he objected to the block,[174] and again some time later,[175] and again at the beginning of this month.[176]SlimVirgin(talk)03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply. SlimVirgin has been engaged in the same "complex" reverts, as we are in the middle of a content dispute regarding this article. Nevertheless, I was under the strong impression that the 3RR dealt with a 3 revert limit for thesame edit, not unrelated threads. I'm assuming I was quite wrong. If this is the case, I apologize, and do not contest the block. As for being offered the chance to reverse myself, as mycontributions will show, I was not editing on WP at the time SlimVirgin was so good as to have made the offer, nor at the time she proceeded with her effort to have me blocked. I have been here a while, and I care about my reputation. Obviously I would not knowingly expose myself to blockage, or the malice of editors who do not like me, out of sheer recklessness and disregard for the rules. I will only add, that I will make a suggestion at the 3RR Talk page that the 3RR rule should make more clear that it does not distinguish between unrelated edit reverting. Oh, one more thing. When Idid see the block and SlimVirgin's warning, WP's database was locked for maintenance. I was only able to eMail FeloniousMonk that I had seen the comments and would reply later when WP was unlocked. I have just now found time to return.--AladdinSE04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice that all of those 3RR issues you quoted all dealt with the sameYazid I article, and the samesingle disputed edit, not unrelated edits. I hope you'll agree I'm not an unintelligent person, and I still fell through the cracks here. It is obvious that the policy can use some polishing up to prevent my kind of mistake. In any case, if you wish to oppose me when I make this suggestion, you can do it at the policy Talk page. We need not clutter this noticeboard.--AladdinSE04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIrish-Scots (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).216.194.0.15 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Previous version reverted to:15:36, 10 April 2006
Comments: Same POV warrior who was blocked under 3RR on Monday:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:216.194.2.108.Demiurge15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:No original research (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:No original research|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Northmeister (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jayjg(talk)16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Note:User:Charles Matthews also blocked, but for 3h; so I unblocked and reblocked for 24h. I'll tell CharlesWilliam M. Connolley17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIrish language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).No More POV Please (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: New user. Almost the entirety of contributions consist of (now reverted) Irish POV pushing. Possibly another user (registered or anon) in disguise, as he is well-informed of wikipedia culture, although not well-informed enough to take his reverting to talk. -Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCuba.
Reported by:Bletch01:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has had anRFC previously placed against him for serial revert warring behavior, and failure to discuss his proposals and changes. --Bletch01:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAlbanians (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NikX (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ilir pz09:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User strongheadedly continued the revert war, even though explanation was offered to him in the talk page. He refused to accept a compromise, but instead called a vandalism action all the edits that he did not like. He tends to mislead using "m"(minor edit) as if he is editing a little, but in fact he changes essential content from the text. His comments are like "yeah right" or "I wonder who uglified the article this way", etc.
I've corrected the name for you. Sigh. Rvs 1 and 2 would count as only one, because they are continguous. You know that from my talk page, so I'm rather unimpressed with your listing them both. 4 and 5 are reverts, cos they say so. Its not at all obvious that 1, 2 or 3 are reverts - which version do you think they are reverts to?William M. Connolley12:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onHouse_of_Yahweh (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).64.185.45.196 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Yahnatan15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This user has a major grudge against this group and its founder. He/she continues to post the same thing with no evidence to back up their assertion. This has gone on for several days now.Yahnatan15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
12h for first offence. Gurch gets a stern warningWilliam M. Connolley19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRonald Reagan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Smokingmaenad (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:NTK18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The original edits by this user had already been hashed out on the talk page, and disregarded the consensus.NTK18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
8h for first offenceWilliam M. Connolley19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJosé Calvo Sotelo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ghepeu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ksenon19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
24h. But I admit to confusion as to why you think you're going to evade a block too: 24hWilliam M. Connolley19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKeith Olbermann (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rcox1963 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:waffle iron22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Rcox user undid a week's worth of edits without explanation and then demanded to know why other people reverted it. He keeps deleting five or six paragraphs with his version of the page by accusing POV issues without listing them.
The user also changed theCountdown with Keith Olbermann page to his version of the KO page.[182] He is also doing similar things to the Countdown page over the past week.[183] --sigmafactor22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is quite amusing to read the comments ofsigmafactor,Day, andwaffle iron. The complaint is that I "undid" edits "without explanation" and then "demanded" to know why other people "reverted" it. I did not "undo" edits I "made" edits to the page as I have every right to do. I don't object to explaining the reason for making those changes and have done so - at length - on the Keith Olbermann discussion page but none of these three "concerned" editors has bothered to even acknowledge them. I find especially interesting the observation that I complained when people "reverted" my edits. As I toldHe on my talk page, I did not "revert" anything but rather made edits and then these three people (and maybe others, I'm not going to go check now) reverted my changes.
I would note thatsigmafactor is the pot calling the kettle black here. I did not see any discussions of any of the "weeks worth of edits" you made; why is it a "crime" on Wikipedia for me to make edits withour explanation but OK for you to do the same?
Regardless, as you have now brought this up to an administrator who has taken action against me, perhaps that same person can show some balance and take these three to task for making edits to the page without discussion and for their hypocrisy in making this complaint about me when they were doing the same thing. Since attempting to comply with the various requests/complaints, I have made individual edits to the page after posting my recommendation on the discussion page and receiving no reply from any editors. These edits were then reverted without discussion.
I would also point out that I have made a good-faith effort to respond to their "complaint" about discussing changes and posted a detailed exposition on the many ways in which the Keith Olbermann page is non-NPOV. I would be happy to discuss any aspect of my concerns about the page but have been completely ignored since last week when I posted them.
That seems like a neat trick to me. Demand that I propose changes on the discussion page, ignore me, then revert my edits when I make the changes, all the while complaining to an admin that I should be banned from editing because I won't "discuss" changes.
PS, I finally figured out how to attach a signature to these entriesUser:Rcox1963
Three revert rule violation onYogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Baba_Louis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Hamsacharya dan21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Not all of these are within 24 hours. However, it is clear that despite 5 other users attempting to edit this article, and despite his reversions having been discussed ad nauseum in the talk archives, Baba Louis obstinately keeps reverting. He's also a confirmed sockpuppet of two other editors, and previously used this for vote/consensus stacking on this and other articles,[184].
Three revert rule violation onInstitute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Slappy_Tahblappy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PecherTalk22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user was warned on the talk page[185], but continued reverting. The 5th revert was about a different issue, but a revert, nevertheless.PecherTalk22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDarth Vader (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.14.154.242 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jedi6-(need help?)02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user keeps changing the picture of Darth Vader in the infobox despite several users disagreeing with him. He has been warned on his talk page to stop reverting and use the article's talk page but he hasn't listened[191].
Three revert rule violation onDanielle Rousseau (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Shaft121 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PKtm05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has actually made 8 reverts to the same page, same end result, since April 4 2006, with six of these coming in the last 2 days. The ones shown above are the most recent and are the first time that he has technically violatedWP:3RR by doing four within a 24-hour period. His reverts come with next to no participation on his part in the copious discussion on the article's talk page atTalk:Danielle Rousseau. He has used profanity and personal attacks in edit comments and on this article's talk page, has erased civil and constructive comments (including 3RR warnings and block messages from this AND previous/unrelated altercations) left on his own talk page, etc., and has generally not responded to repeated requests (most of which he has now erased, but which are available through his talk page history) to enter into collaborative discussion on the issues.
Three revert rule violation onBernie Sanders (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Straightinfo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:waffle iron16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Appears to be aware of 3RR but justifies all reversions by claiming that other editors are vandilising the page. Has previously done similar things before registering an account.waffle iron16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)